    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2004, Book III)]
    [October 8, 2004]
    [Pages 2395-2421]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Presidential Debate in St. Louis, Missouri
    October 8, 2004

        Charles Gibson. Good evening from the
    Field House at Washington University in St. Louis. I'm Charles Gibson of
    ABC News and ``Good Morning America.'' I welcome you to the second of
    the 2004 Presidential debates between President George W. Bush, the
    Republican nominee, and Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee. The
    debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
        Tonight's format is going to be a bit different. We have assembled a
    townhall meeting. We're in the ``Show Me'' State, as everyone knows
    Missouri to be, so Missouri residents will ask the questions, these 140
    citizens who were identified by the Gallup Organization as not yet
    committed in this election. Now, earlier today each audience member gave
    me two questions on cards like this: One they'd like to ask of the
    President; the other they'd like to ask the Senator. I have selected the
    questions to be asked and the order. No one has seen the final list of
    questions but me--certainly not the candidates. No audience member knows
    if he or she will be called upon. Audience microphones will be turned
    off after a question is asked.
        Audience members will address their question to a specific
    candidate. He'll have 2 minutes to answer. The other candidate will have
    a minute and a half for rebuttal. And I have the option of extending
    discussion for 1 minute, to be divided equally between the two men. All
    subjects are open for discussion. And you probably know the light system
    by now, green light at 30 seconds, yellow at 15, red at 5, and flashing
    red means you're done. Those are the candidates' rules. I will hold the
    candidates

    [[Page 2396]]

    to the time limits forcefully, but politely, I hope.
        And now please join me in welcoming, with great respect, President
    Bush and Senator Kerry.
        Gentlemen, to the business at hand. The first question is for
    Senator Kerry, and it will come from Cheryl Otis, who is right behind
    me.

    Consistent Leadership

        Cheryl Otis. Senator Kerry, after talking to
    several coworkers and family and friends, I asked the ones who said they
    were not voting for you, why. They said that you were too wishy-washy.
    Do you have a reply for them?
        Senator John Kerry. Yes, I certainly do.
    [Laughter] But let me just first, Cheryl, if you will, I want to thank
    Charlie for moderating. I want to thank Washington University for
    hosting us here this evening. Mr. President, it's good to be with you
    again this evening, sir.
        Cheryl, the President didn't find weapons of mass destruction in
    Iraq, so he's really turned his campaign into a weapon of mass
    deception. And the result is that you've been bombarded with
    advertisements suggesting that I've changed a position on this or that
    or the other. Now, the three things they try to say I've changed
    position on are the PATRIOT Act--I haven't. I support it. I just don't
    like the way John Ashcroft has applied it. And we're going to change a
    few things. The chairman of the Republican Party thinks we ought to
    change a few things.
        No Child Left Behind Act--I voted for it. I support it. I support
    the goals. But the President has underfunded it by $28 billion. Right
    here in St. Louis, you've laid off 350 teachers. You're 150--excuse me,
    I think it's a little more--about $100 million shy of what you ought to
    be under the No Child Left Behind Act to help your education system
    here. So I complain about that. I've argued that we should fully fund
    it. The President says I've changed my mind. I haven't changed my mind.
    I'm going to fully fund it. So these are the differences.
        Now, the President has presided over the economy where we've lost
    1.6 million jobs, the first President in 72 years to lose jobs. I have a
    plan to put people back to work. That's not wishy-washy. I'm going to
    close the loopholes that actually encourage companies to go overseas.
    The President wants to keep them open. I think I'm right. I think he's
    wrong.
        I'm going to give you a tax cut. The President gave--the top one
    percent of income earners in America got $89 billion last year, more
    than the 80 percent of people who earn $100,000 or less all put
    together. I think that's wrong. That's not wishy-washy, and that's what
    I'm fighting for--you.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President, a minute and a
    half.
        President Bush. Charlie, thank you, and
    thank our panelists. Senator, thank you. I
    can--and thanks, Washington U. as well.
        I can see why people at your workplace think he changes positions a lot, because he does. He said he voted
    for the $87 billion and--or voted against it right before he voted for
    it. And that sends a confusing signal to people. He said he thought
    Saddam Hussein was a grave threat and now
    said it was a mistake to remove Saddam Hussein from power. No, I can see
    why people think that he changes position quite often, because he does.
        You know, for a while, he was a strong
    supporter of getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
    He saw the wisdom, until the Democratic primary came along and Howard
    Dean, the antiwar candidate, began to gain on
    him. And he changed positions. I don't see how you can lead this country
    in a time of war, in a time of uncertainty, if you change your mind
    because of politics.
        He just brought up the tax cut. You
    remember, we increased that child credit by $1000, reduced the marriage
    penalty, created a 10-percent tax bracket for the lower

    [[Page 2397]]

    income Americans--that's right at the middle class. He voted against it,
    and yet he tells you he's for a middle-class tax cut. It's--you've got
    to be consistent when you're the President. There's a lot of pressures,
    and you've got to be firm and consistent.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President, I would follow
    up, but we have a series of questions on Iraq, and so I will turn to the
    next questioner. The question for President Bush, and the questioner is
    Robin Dahle.

    Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction

        Robin Dahle. Mr. President----
        Mr. Gibson. Can you get a microphone,
    Robin, I'm sorry.
        Mr. Dahle. Mr. President, yesterday in a
    statement you admitted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass
    destruction but justified the invasion by stating, I quote, ``He
    retained the knowledge, the materials, the means, and the intent to
    produce weapons of mass destruction and could have passed this knowledge
    to our terrorist enemies.'' Do you sincerely believe this to be a
    reasonable justification for invasion when this statement applies to so
    many other countries, including North Korea?
        President Bush. Each situation is different, Robin. And obviously, we hope that diplomacy works before you
    ever use force. The hardest decision a President makes is ever to use
    force.
        After 9/11, we had to look at the world differently. After 9/11, we
    had to recognize that when we saw a threat, we must take it seriously
    before it comes to hurt us. In the old days, we'd see a threat, and we
    could deal with it if we felt like it or not. But 9/11 changed it all.
        I vowed to our countrymen that I would do everything I could to
    protect the American people. That's why we're bringing Al Qaida to
    justice. Seventy-five percent of them have been brought to justice.
    That's why I said to Afghanistan, ``If you harbor a terrorist, you're
    just as guilty as the terrorist.'' And the Taliban is no longer in
    power, and Al Qaida no longer has a place to plan.
        And I saw a unique threat in Saddam Hussein, as did my opponent, because
    we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. And the unique threat was
    that he could give weapons of mass destruction to an organization like
    Al Qaida, and the harm they inflicted on us with airplanes would be
    multiplied greatly by weapons of mass destruction. And that was a
    serious, serious threat.
        So I tried diplomacy. I went to the United Nations. But as we
    learned in the same report I quoted, Saddam Hussein was gaming the Oil for Food Programme to get rid of
    sanctions. He was trying to get rid of sanctions for a reason. He wanted
    to restart his weapons programs.
        We all thought there was weapons there, Robin. My opponent thought there was
    weapons there. That's why he called him a grave threat. I wasn't happy
    when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've got an intelligence
    group together to figure out why. But Saddam Hussein was a unique
    threat, and the world is better off without him in power. And my
    opponent's plans lead me to conclude that Saddam Hussein would still be
    in power and the world would be more dangerous.
        Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator Kerry, a minute and a
    half.
        Senator Kerry. Robin, I'm going to answer
    your question. I'm also going to talk--respond to what you asked,
    Cheryl, at the same time.
        The world is more dangerous today. The world is more dangerous today
    because the President didn't make the right judgments. Now, the
    President wishes that I had changed my mind. He wants you to believe
    that, because he can't come here and tell you that he's created new jobs
    for America. He's lost jobs. He can't come here and tell you that he's
    created health care for Americans because one-point--what, we've got 5
    million Americans who have lost their

    [[Page 2398]]

    health care, 96,000 of them right here in Missouri. He can't come here
    and tell you that he's left no child behind because he didn't fund No
    Child Left Behind.
        So what does he do? He's trying to attack me. He wants you to
    believe that I can't be President, and he's trying to make you believe
    it because he wants you to think I change my mind.
        Well, let me tell you straight up, I've never changed my mind about
    Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was
    a threat--believed it in 1998 when Clinton was President. I wanted to
    give Clinton the power to use force if necessary. But I would have used
    that force wisely. I would have used that authority wisely, not rushed
    to war without a plan to win the peace. I would have brought our allies
    to our side. I would have fought to make certain our troops had
    everybody possible to help them win the mission.
        This President rushed to war, pushed our allies aside, and Iran now
    is more dangerous, and so is North Korea with nuclear weapons. He took
    his eye off the ball, off of Usama bin Laden.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President, I do want to
    follow up on this one, because there were several questions from the
    audience along this line.
        President Bush. Are we going to have a rebuttal thing back and
    forth?
        Mr. Gibson. Well, I was going to have you
    do it with the rebuttal. But you go ahead. [Laughter] You're up.
        President Bush. Remember the last debate? My opponent said that America must pass a global test before we use
    force to protect ourselves. That's the kind of mindset that says
    sanctions were working. That's the kind of mindset that says let's keep
    it at the United Nations and hope things go well.
        Saddam Hussein was a threat because he
    could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies.
    Sanctions were not working. The United Nations was not effective at
    removing Saddam Hussein.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator?
        Senator Kerry. The goal of the sanctions
    was not to remove Saddam Hussein. It was to remove the weapons of mass
    destruction. And Mr. President, just yesterday the Duelfer report told
    you and the whole world they worked. He didn't have weapons of mass
    destruction, Mr. President. That was the objective. And if we had used
    smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200 billion and an invasion of
    Iraq, and right now Usama bin Laden might be in jail or dead. That's the
    war against terror.
        Mr. Gibson. We're going to have another
    question now on the subject of Iraq. And I'm just going to turn to
    Anthony Baldi with a question for Senator Kerry.
        Mr. Baldi.

    Iraq/War on Terror

        Anthony Baldi. Senator Kerry, the U.S. is
    preparing a new Iraq Government, and we'll proceed to withdraw U.S.
    troops. Would you proceed with the same plans as President Bush?
        Senator Kerry. Anthony, I would not. I
    have laid out a different plan because the President's plan is not
    working. You see that every night on television. There's chaos in Iraq.
    King Abdullah of Jordan said just yesterday--or the day before, you
    can't hold elections in Iraq with the chaos that's going on today.
    Senator Richard Lugar, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations
    Committee, said that the handling of the reconstruction aid in Iraq by
    this administration has been ``incompetent.'' Those are the Republican
    chairman's words. Senator Hagel of Nebraska said that the handling of
    Iraq is ``beyond pitiful, beyond embarrassing. It's in the zone of
    dangerous.'' Those are the words of two Republicans, respected, both on
    the Foreign Relations Committee.
        Now, I have to tell you, I would do something different. I would
    reach out to our allies in a way that this President

    [[Page 2399]]

    hasn't. He pushed them away time and again, pushed them away at the
    U.N., pushed them away individually. Two weeks ago, there was a meeting
    of the North Atlantic Council, which is the political arm of NATO. They
    discussed the possibility of a small training unit or having a total
    takeover of the training in Iraq. Did our administration push for the
    total training of Iraq? No. Were they silent? Yes. Was there an effort
    to bring all the allies together around that? No--because they've always
    wanted this to be an American effort. You know, they even had the
    Defense Department issue a memorandum saying don't bother applying for
    assistance or for being part of the reconstruction if you weren't part
    of our original coalition.
        Now, that's not a good way to build support and reduce the risk for
    our troops and make America safer. I'm going to get the training done
    for our troops. I'm going to get the training of Iraqis done faster, and
    I'm going to get our allies back to the table.
        President Bush. Two days ago in the Oval Office, I met with the
    Finance Minister from Iraq. He came to
    see me, and he talked about how optimistic he was and the country was
    about heading toward elections. Think about it. They're going from
    tyranny to elections. He talked about the reconstruction efforts that
    are beginning to take hold. He talked about the fact that Iraqis love to
    be free. He said he was optimistic when he came here. Then he turned on
    the TV and listened to the political rhetoric, and all of a sudden he
    was pessimistic.
        This is a guy who, along with others,
    has taken great risk for freedom, and we need to stand with him. My
    opponent says he has a plan--sounds familiar
    because it's called the Bush plan. We're going to train troops, and we
    are. We'll have 125,000 trained by the end of December. We're spending
    about $7 billion.
        He talks about a grand idea: Let's have a
    summit; we're going to solve the problem in Iraq by holding a summit.
    And what is he going to say to those people that show up to the summit?
    ``Join me in the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place''? Risk
    your troops in a war you've called a ``mistake''? Nobody is going to
    follow somebody who doesn't believe we can succeed and somebody who says
    the war where we are is a ``mistake.'' I know how these people think. I
    meet with them all the time. I talk to Tony Blair
    all the time. I talk to Silvio Berlusconi.
    They're not going to follow an American President who says, ``Follow me
    into a mistake.''
        Our plan is working. We're going to make elections, and Iraq is
    going to be free, and America will be better off for it.
        Mr. Gibson. Do you want to follow up,
    Senator?
        Senator Kerry. Yes, sir, please.
        Ladies and gentlemen, the right war was Usama bin Laden and
    Afghanistan. That was the right place, and the right time was Tora Bora,
    when we had him cornered in the mountains. Now, everyone in the world
    knows that there were no weapons of mass destruction. That was the
    reason Congress gave him the authority to use force, not after excuse to
    get rid of the regime.
        Now we have to succeed. I've always said that. I have been
    consistent. Yes, we have to succeed, and I have a better plan to help us
    do it.
        President Bush. First of all, we didn't find out he didn't have weapons until we got there, and my
    opponent thought he had weapons and told
    everybody he thought he had weapons. And secondly, it's a fundamental
    misunderstanding to say that the war on terror is only Usama bin
    Laden. The war on terror is to make sure
    that these terrorist organizations do not end up with weapons of mass
    destruction. That's what the war on terror is about.
        Of course we're going to find Usama bin Laden. We've already got 75 percent of his people, and we're
    on the hunt for him. But this is a global conflict that requires firm
    resolve.

    [[Page 2400]]

        Mr. Gibson. The next question is for
    President Bush, and it comes from Nikki Washington.

    President's Decisionmaking on Iraq

        Nikki Washington. Thank you. Mr.
    President, my mother and sister traveled abroad this summer, and when
    they got back, they talked to us about how shocked they were at the
    intensity of aggravation that other countries had with how we handled
    the Iraq situation. Diplomacy is, obviously, something that we have to
    really work on. What is your plan to repair relations with other
    countries, given the current situation?
        President Bush. No, I appreciate that. I--listen, I--we've got a
    great country. I love our values. And I recognize I've made some
    decisions that have caused people to not understand the great values of
    our country. I remember when Ronald Reagan was the President. He stood
    on principle. Some might have called that stubborn. He stood on
    principle, standing up to the Soviet Union. And we won that conflict,
    yet at the same time, he was very--we were very unpopular in Europe
    because of decisions he made.
        I recognize that taking Saddam Hussein
    out was unpopular, but I made the decision because I thought it was in
    the right interests of our security.
        You know, I've made some decisions on Israel. That's unpopular. I
    wouldn't deal with Arafat because I felt like
    he had let the former President down, and
    I don't think he's the kind of person that can lead toward a Palestinian
    state. And people in Europe didn't like that decision. And that was
    unpopular, but it was the right thing to do. I believe Palestinians
    ought to have a state, but I know they need leadership that's committed
    to democracy and freedom, leadership that will be willing to reject
    terrorism.
        I made a decision not to join the International Criminal Court in
    The Hague, which is where our troops could be brought to--brought in
    front of a judge, an unaccounted judge. I don't think we ought to join
    that. That was unpopular. And so what I'm telling you is, is that
    sometimes in this world you make unpopular decisions because you think
    they're right.
        We'll continue to reach out. Listen, there's 30 nations involved in
    Iraq, some 40 nations involved in Afghanistan. People love America.
    Sometimes they don't like the decisions made by America, but I don't
    think you want a President who tries to become popular and does the
    wrong thing. You don't want to join the International Criminal Court
    just because it's popular in certain capitals in Europe.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator Kerry, a minute and a
    half.
        Senator Kerry. Nikki, that's a question
    that's been raised by a lot of people around the country. Let me address
    it but also talk about the weapons the President just talked about,
    because every part of the President's answer just now promises you more
    of the same over the next 4 years.
        The President stood right here in this hall 4 years ago, and he was
    asked a question by somebody just like you: Under what circumstances
    would you send people to war? And his answer was: With a viable exit
    strategy and only with enough forces to get the job done. He didn't do
    that. He broke that promise. We didn't have enough forces. General
    Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, told him he was going to need several
    hundred thousand. And guess what? They retired General Shinseki for
    telling him that. This President hasn't listened.
        I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week
    before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them to find out
    how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable. I
    came away convinced that if we worked at it, if we were ready to work at
    letting Hans Blix do his job and thoroughly go through the inspections,
    that if push came to shove, they'd be there with us.

    [[Page 2401]]

        But the President just arbitrarily brought the hammer down and said,
    ``Nope, sorry, time for diplomacy is over. We're going.'' He rushed to
    war without a plan to win the peace. Ladies and gentlemen, he gave you a
    speech and told you he'd plan carefully, take every precaution, take our
    allies with us. He didn't. He broke his word.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President.
        President Bush. I remember sitting in the White House, looking at
    those generals, saying, ``Do you have what you need in this war? Do you
    have what it takes?'' I remember going down in the basement of the White
    House the day we committed our troops--as last resort--looking at Tommy
    Franks and the generals on the ground,
    asking them, ``Do we have the right plan with the right troop level?''
    And they looked me in the eye and said, ``Yes, sir, Mr. President.'' Of
    course I listened to our generals. That's what a President does. A
    President sets the strategy and relies upon good military people to
    execute that strategy.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator.
        Senator Kerry. You rely on good military
    people to execute the military component of the strategy, but winning
    the peace is larger than just the military component. General Shinseki
    had the wisdom to say you're going to need several hundred thousand
    troops to win the peace. The military's job is to win the war. The
    President's job is to win the peace. The President did not do what was
    necessary, didn't bring in enough nations, didn't deliver the help,
    didn't close off the borders, didn't even guard the ammo dumps. And now
    our kids are being killed with ammos right out of that dump.
        Mr. Gibson. The next question is for
    Senator Kerry, and it comes from over here, from Randee Jacobs. You'll
    need a microphone.
        Senator Kerry. Is it Randee? I'm sorry.

    Iran/North Korea

        Randee Jacobs. Yes, Randee. Iran sponsors
    terrorism and has missiles capable of hitting Israel and southern
    Europe. Iran will have nuclear weapons in 2 to 3 years' time. In the
    event that U.N. sanctions don't stop this threat, what will you do as
    President?
        Senator Kerry. I don't think you can just
    rely on U.N. sanctions, Randee, but you're absolutely correct. It is a
    threat. It's a huge threat. And what's interesting is it's a threat that
    has grown while the President has been preoccupied with Iraq, where
    there wasn't a threat. If he'd let the inspectors do their job and go
    on, we wouldn't have 10 times the numbers of forces in Iraq that we have
    in Afghanistan chasing Usama bin Laden.
        Meanwhile, while Iran is moving towards nuclear weapons--some 37
    tons of what they call yellow cake, the stuff they use to make enriched
    uranium--while they're doing that, North Korea has moved from one bomb,
    maybe--maybe--to 4 to 7 bombs.
        For 2 years the President didn't even engage with North Korea, did
    nothing at all, while it was growing more dangerous, despite the
    warnings of people like former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who
    negotiated getting television cameras and inspectors into that reactor.
    We were safer before President Bush came to office. Now, they have the
    bombs, and we're less safe.
        So what do we do? We've got to join with the British and the French,
    with the Germans who've been involved in their initiative. We've got to
    lead the world now to crack down on proliferation as a whole. But the
    President has been slow to do that even in Russia. At his pace, it's
    going to take 13 years to reduce and get a hold of all the loose nuclear
    material in the former Soviet Union. I've proposed a plan that can
    capture it and contain it and clean it within 4 years.

    [[Page 2402]]

        And the President is moving toward the creation of our own bunker-
    busting nuclear weapon. It's very hard to get other countries to give up
    their weapons when you're busy developing a new one. I'm going to lead
    the world in the greatest
    counterproliferation effort, and if we have to get tough with Iran,
    believe me, we will get tough.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President, a minute and a
    half.
        President Bush. That answer almost made me want to scowl. [Laughter]
    He keeps talking about letting the inspectors
    do their job. It's naive and dangerous to say that. That's what the
    Duelfer report showed. He was deceiving
    the inspectors.
        Secondly, of course we've been involved with Iran. I fully
    understand the threat. And that's why we're doing what he suggested we
    do, get the Brits, the Germans, and the French to go make it very clear
    to the Iranians that if they expect to be a party to the world, to give
    up their nuclear ambitions. We've been doing that.
        Let me talk about North Korea. It is naive and dangerous to take a
    policy that he suggested the other day, which
    is to have bilateral relations with North Korea. Remember, he is the
    person who is accusing me of not acting multilaterally. He now wants to
    take the six-party talks we have--China, North Korea, South Korea,
    Russia, Japan, and the United States--and undermine them by having
    bilateral talks. That's what President Clinton did. He had bilateral talks with the North Korean, and
    guess what happened? He didn't honor the
    agreement. He was enriching uranium. That is a bad policy.
        Of course, we're paying attention to these. That's a great question
    about Iran. That's why, in my speech to the Congress, I said there is an
    axis of evil, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, and we're paying attention to
    it, and we're making progress.
        Mr. Gibson. We're going to move on, Mr.
    President, with a question for you. And it comes from Daniel Farley.
        Mr. Farley.

    Possibility of Reinstating the Draft

        Daniel Farley. Mr. President, since we
    continue to police the world, how do you intend to maintain a military
    presence without reinstituting a draft?
        President Bush. Yes, great question. Thanks.
        I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a
    draft. We're not going to have a draft--period. The All-Volunteer Army
    works. It works particularly when we pay our troops well. It works when
    we make sure they've got housing, like we have done in the last military
    budgets. An all-volunteer army is best suited to fight the new wars of
    the 21st century, which is to be specialized and to find these people as
    they hide around the world. We don't need massed armies anymore.
        One of the things we've done is we've taken the--we're beginning to
    transform our military. And by that I mean we're moving troops out of
    Korea and replacing them with more effective weapons. We don't need as
    much manpower on the Korean Peninsula to keep a deterrent.
        In Europe, we have massed troops as if the Soviet Union existed and
    was going to invade into Europe, but those days are over with. And so
    we're moving troops out of Europe and replacing it with more effective
    equipment.
        So the answer to your question is, we're withdrawing--not from the
    world--we're drawing manpower, so they can be stationed here in America,
    so there's less rotation, so life is easier on their families and
    therefore more likely to be--we'll be more likely to keep people in the
    All-Volunteer Army.
        One of the most important things we're doing in this administration
    is transformation. There's some really interesting technologies. For
    example, we're flying unmanned vehicles that can send real-time messages
    back to stations in the United States. That saves manpower, and it saves

    [[Page 2403]]

    equipment. It also means that we can target things easier and move more
    quickly, which means we need to be lighter and quicker and more facile
    and highly trained.
        Forget all this talk about a draft. We're not going to have a draft
    so long as I'm the President.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator Kerry, minute and a half.
        Senator Kerry. Daniel, I don't support a
    draft. But let me tell you where the President's policies have put us.
    The President--and this is one of the reasons why I'm very proud in this
    race to have the support of General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman
    of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Admiral William Crowe, former Chairman of
    the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Tony McPeak, who ran the air war for
    the President's father and did a brilliant job--supporting me; General
    Wes Clark, who won the war in Kosovo--supporting me; because they all--
    and General Baca, who was the head of the National Guard--supporting me.
    Why? Because they understand that our military is overextended under
    this President.
        Our Guard and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty.
    You've got people doing two and three rotations. You've got stop-loss
    policies so people can't get out when they were supposed to. You've got
    a backdoor draft right now, and a lot of our military are underpaid.
    These are families that get hurt. It hurts the middle class. It hurts
    communities, because these are our first-responders, and they're called
    up, and they're over there, not over here.
        Now, I'm going to add 40,000 active duty forces to the military. And
    I'm going to make people feel good about being safe in our military and
    not overextended because I'm going to run a foreign policy that actually
    does what President Reagan did and President Eisenhower did and others.
    We're going to build alliances. We're not going to go unilaterally.
    We're not going to go alone like this President did.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President, let's extend
    for a minute.
        President Bush. Let me just--I've got to answer this.
        Mr. Gibson. Exactly. And with Reservists
    being held on duty and some soldiers----
        President Bush. Let me just answer what he
    just said about going alone.
        Mr. Gibson. I wanted to get into the
    issue of the backdoor draft.
        President Bush. You tell Tony Blair we're
    going alone. Tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Silvio
    Berlusconi we're going alone. Tell
    Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland
    we're going alone. We've got 30 countries there. It denigrates an
    alliance to say we're going alone, to discount their sacrifices. You
    cannot lead an alliance if you say you're going alone. And people
    listen. They're sacrificing with us.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator.
        Senator Kerry. Mr. President, countries
    are leaving the coalition, not joining. Eight countries have left it. If
    Missouri, just given the number of people from Missouri who are in the
    military over there today, were a country, it would be the third largest
    country in the coalition, behind Great Britain and the United States.
    That's not a grand coalition. Ninety percent of the casualties are
    American. Ninety percent of the costs are coming out of your pockets. I
    could do a better job. My plan does a better job, and that's why I'll be
    a better Commander in Chief.
        Mr. Gibson. The next question, Senator
    Kerry, is for you, and it comes from Ann Bronsing, who I believe is over
    in this area.

    Terrorist Attacks/Homeland Security

        Ann Bronsing. Senator Kerry, we have been
    fortunate that there have been no further terrorist attacks on American
    soil since 9/11. Why do you think this is? And if elected, what will you
    do to assure our safety?
        Senator Kerry. Thank you very much, Ann.
    I've asked in my security briefings why that is, and I can't go into all
    the

    [[Page 2404]]

    answers, et cetera, but let me say this to you. This President and his
    administration have told you and all of us, ``It's not a question of
    when, it's a question of''--excuse me, ``not a question of if, it's a
    question of when.'' We've been told that. The ``when'' I can't tell you.
    Between the World Trade Center bombing in--what was it, 1993 or so--and
    the next time was 5 years, 7 years. These people wait. They'll plan.
    They plot.
        I agree with the President that we have to go after them and get
    them wherever they are. I just think I can do that far more effectively
    because the most important weapon in doing that is intelligence. You've
    got to have the best intelligence in the world. And in order to have the
    best intelligence in the world, to know who the terrorists are and where
    they are and what they're plotting, you've got to have the best
    cooperation you've ever had in the world.
        Now, to go back to your question, Nikki, we're not getting the best
    cooperation in the world today. We've got a whole bunch of countries
    that pay a price for dealing with the United States of America now. I'm
    going to change that.
        And I'm going to put in place a better homeland security effort.
    Look at it, 95 percent of our containers coming into this country are
    not inspected today. When you get on an airplane, your cart--your bag is
    X-rayed, but the cargo hold isn't X-rayed. Do you feel safer? This
    President, in the last debate, said that, well, that would be a big tax
    gap if we did that. Ladies and gentlemen, it's his tax plan. He chose a
    tax cut for the wealthiest Americans over getting that equipment out
    into the homeland as fast as possible. We have bridges and tunnels that
    aren't being secured; chemical plants, nuclear plants that aren't
    secured; hospitals that are overcrowded in their emergency rooms. If we
    had a disaster today, could they handle it?
        This President chose a tax cut over homeland security. Wrong choice.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President.
        President Bush. That's an odd thing to say since we've tripled the
    homeland security budget from 10 to 30 billion dollars. Listen, we'll do
    everything we can to protect the homeland. My opponent is right: We need good intelligence. It's also a curious
    thing for him to say, since right after 1993, he voted to cut the
    intelligence budget by $7.5 billion.
        The best way to defend America in this world we live in is to stay
    on the offense. We've got to be right 100 percent of the time here at
    home, and they've got to be right once. And that's the reality. And
    there's a lot of good people working hard. We're doing the best we
    possibly can to share information. That's why the PATRIOT Act was
    important. The PATRIOT Act is vital, by the way. It's a tool that law
    enforcement now uses to be able to talk between each other. My
    opponent says he hasn't changed his positions
    on it. No, but he's for weakening it.
        I don't think my opponent has got the
    right view about the world to make us safe. I really don't. First of
    all, I don't think he can succeed in Iraq. And if Iraq were to fail, it
    would be a haven for terrorists, and there would be money, and the world
    would be much more dangerous. I don't see how you can win in Iraq if you
    don't believe we should be there in the first place. I don't see how you
    can lead troops if you say, ``It's the wrong war at the wrong place at
    the wrong time.'' I don't see how the Iraqis are going to have
    confidence in the American President if all they hear is that it was a
    ``mistake'' to be there in the first place.
        This war is a long, long war, and it requires steadfast
    determination. And it requires a complete understanding that we not only
    chase down Al Qaida, but we disrupt terrorists' safe havens as well as
    people who could provide the terrorists with support.
        Mr. Gibson. I want to extend for a
    minute, Senator, and I'm curious about something you said. You said,
    ``It's not

    [[Page 2405]]

    when but if.'' You think it's inevitable? Because the sense of security
    is a very basic thing with everybody in this country, worried about
    their kids.
        Senator Kerry. Well, the President and his
    experts have told America that it's not a question of if, it's a
    question of when. And I accept what the President has said. These
    terrorists are serious. They're deadly, and they know nothing except
    trying to kill. I understand that. That's why I will never stop at
    anything to hunt down and kill the terrorists.
        But you heard the President just say to you that we've added money.
    Folks, the test is not if you've added money. The test is, have you done
    everything possible to make America secure? He chose a tax cut for
    wealthy Americans over the things that I listed to you.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President.
        President Bush. Well, we'll talk about the tax cut for middle class
    here in a minute. But yes, I'm worried. I'm worried. I'm worried about
    our country. And all I can tell you is, every day I know that there's
    people working overtime, doing the very best they can. And the reason
    I'm worried is because there's a vicious enemy that has an ideology of
    hate. And the way to defeat them long-term, by the way, is to spread
    freedom. Liberty can change habits, and that's what's happening in
    Afghanistan and Iraq.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President, we're going to
    turn to questions now on domestic policy, and we're going to start with
    health issues. And the first question is for President Bush, and it's
    from John Horstman.

    Drug Imports From Canada/Health Care

        John Horstman. Mr. President, why did you
    block the reimportation of safer and inexpensive drugs from Canada,
    which would have cut 40 to 60 percent off of the cost?
        President Bush. I haven't yet. I just want to make sure they're
    safe. When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you
    and doesn't kill you. And that's why the FDA and that's why the Surgeon
    General are looking very carefully to
    make sure it can be done in a safe way. I've got an obligation to make
    sure our Government does everything we can to protect you. And one of--
    my worry is that it looks like it's from Canada, and it might be from a
    third world. We've just got to make sure, before somebody thinks they're
    buying a product, that it works. And that's why we're doing what we're
    doing. Now, it may very well be, here in December, you hear me say, ``I
    think there's a safe way to do it.''
        Other ways to make sure drugs are cheaper: One is to speed up
    generic drugs to the marketplace quicker. Pharmaceuticals were using
    loopholes to keep brand drugs in place, and generics are much less
    expensive than brand drugs. And we're doing just that. Another is to get
    our seniors to sign up for these drug discount cards, and they're
    working. Wanda Blackmore, I met here from
    Missouri--the first time she bought drugs with her drug discount card
    she paid $1.14, I think it was, for about $10 worth of drugs. These
    cards make sense.
        And you know, in 2006, seniors are going to get prescription drug
    coverage for the first time in Medicare, because I went to Washington to
    fix problems. Medicare--the issue of Medicare used to be called ``Medi-
    scare.'' People didn't want to touch it for fear of getting hurt
    politically. I wanted to get something done. I think our seniors deserve
    a modern medical system. And in 2006, our seniors will get prescription
    drug coverage.
        Thank you for asking.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator, a minute and a half.
        Senator Kerry. John, you heard the
    President just say that he thought he might try to be for it. Four years
    ago, right here in this forum, he was asked the same question, ``Can't
    people be able to import drugs from Canada?'' Do you know what he said?

    [[Page 2406]]

    ``I think that makes sense. I think that's a good idea''--4 years ago.
        Now, the President said, ``I'm not blocking that.'' Ladies and
    gentlemen, the President just didn't level with you--right now, again.
    He did block it, because we passed it in the United States Senate. We
    sent it over to the House that you could import drugs. We took care of
    the safety issues. We're not talking about third-world drugs. We're
    talking about drugs made right here in the United States of America that
    have American brand names on them, in American bottles, and we're asking
    they be able to allow you to get them. The President blocked it.
        The President also took Medicare, which belongs to you, and he could
    have lowered the cost of Medicare and lowered your taxes and lowered the
    cost to seniors. You know what he did? He made it illegal--illegal--for
    Medicare to do what the VA does, which is bulk-purchase drugs so that
    you could lower the price and get them out to you lower. He put $139
    billion of windfall profit into the pockets of the drug companies, right
    out of your pockets.
        That's the difference between us. The President sides with the power
    companies, the oil companies, the drug companies. And I'm fighting to
    let you get those drugs from Canada, and I'm fighting to let Medicare
    survive. I'm fighting for the middle class. That's the difference.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President.
        President Bush. If they're safe, they're coming. I want to remind
    you that it wasn't just my administration that made the decision on
    safety. President Clinton did the same
    thing, because we have an obligation to protect you.
        Now, he talks about Medicare. He's been in
    the United States Senate 20 years. Show me one accomplishment toward
    Medicare that he accomplished. I've been in Washington, DC, 3\1/2\ years
    and led the Congress to reform Medicare so our seniors have got a modern
    health care system. That's what leadership is all about.
        Senator Kerry. Actually, Mr. President, in
    1997, we fixed Medicare, and I was one of the people involved in it. We
    not only fixed Medicare and took it way out into the future, we did
    something that you don't know how to do. We balanced the budget. And we
    paid down the debt of our Nation for 2 years in a row, and we created 23
    million new jobs at the same time. And it's the President's fiscal
    policies that have driven up the biggest deficits in American history.
    He's added more debt to the debt of the United States in 4 years than
    all the way from George Washington to Ronald Reagan put together. Go
    figure.
        Mr. Gibson. Next question is for Senator
    Kerry, and this comes from Norma-Jean Laurent.

    Tort Reform

        Norma-Jean Laurent. Senator Kerry,
    you've stated your concern for the rising cost of health care. Yet you
    chose a Vice Presidential candidate who has made millions of dollars
    successfully suing medical professionals. How do you reconcile this with
    the voters?
        Senator Kerry. Very easily. John Edwards
    is the author of the Patients' Bill of Rights. He wanted to give people
    rights. John Edwards and I support tort reform. We both believe that as
    lawyers--I'm a lawyer too--and I believe that we will be able to get a
    fix that has eluded everybody else, because we know how to do it. It's
    in my health care proposal. Go to johnkerry.com--you can pull it off the
    Internet--and you'll find a tort reform plan.
        Now, ladies and gentlemen, important to understand, the President
    and his friends try to make a big deal out of it. Is it a problem? Yes,
    it's a problem. Do we need to fix it, particularly for ob-gyns* and for
    brain surgeons and others? Yes. But it's less than one percent of the
    total cost of health care. Your premiums are going up.

    [[Page 2407]]

    You've gone up in Missouri about $3,500. You've gone up 64 percent.
    You've seen co-pays go up, deductibles go up. Everything has gone up.
    Five million people have lost their health insurance under this
    President, and he's done nothing about it.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *White House correction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I have a plan. I have a plan to lower the cost of health care for
    you. I have a plan to cover all children. I have a plan to let you buy
    into the same health care Senators and Congressmen give themselves. I
    have a plan that's going to allow people 55 to 64 to buy into Medicare
    early. And I have a plan that will take the catastrophic cases out of
    the system, off your backs, pay for it out of a Federal fund, which
    lowers the premiums for everybody in America, makes American business
    more competitive, and makes health care more affordable.
        Now, all of that can happen, but I have to ask you to do one thing.
    Join me in rolling back the President's unaffordable tax cut for people
    earning more than $200,000 a year. That's all. Ninety-eight percent of
    America, I'm giving you a tax cut, and I'm giving you health care.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President, a minute and a
    half.
        President Bush. Let me see where to start here. First, the National
    Journal named Senator Kerry* the most liberal
    Senator of all. And that's saying something in that bunch. You might say
    that took a lot of hard work.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *White House correction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The reason I bring that up is because he's
    proposed $2.2 trillion in new spending and he says he's going to tax the
    rich to close the tax gap. He can't. He's going to tax everybody here to
    fund his programs. That's just reality.
        And what are his health programs? First,
    he says he's for medical liability reform, particularly for ob-gyns.
    There was a bill on the floor of the United States Senate that he could
    have showed up and voted for if he's so much for it. Secondly, he says
    that medical liability costs only cause one percent increase. That shows
    a lack of understanding. Doctors practice defensive medicine because of
    all the frivolous lawsuits that cost our Government $28 billion a year.
        And finally, he says he's going to have a
    novel health care plan. You know what it is? The Federal Government is
    going to run it. It is the largest increase in Federal Government health
    care ever, and it fits with his philosophy. That's why I told you about
    the award he won from the National Journal. That's what liberals do:
    They create Government-sponsored health care. Maybe you think that makes
    sense. I don't. Government-sponsored health care would lead to
    rationing. It would ruin the quality of health care in America.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator Kerry, we got several
    questions along this line, and I'm just curious if you'd go further on
    what you talked about with tort reform. Would you be favoring capping
    awards on pain and suffering? Would you limit attorneys' fees--yes, to
    follow up on this for a minute. Thirty seconds.
        Senator Kerry. Yes, I think we should look
    at the punitive, and we should have some limitations. But look, what's
    really important, Charlie, is the President's just trying to scare
    everybody here with throwing labels around. I mean, ``compassionate
    conservative,'' what does that mean? Cutting 500,000 kids from after-
    school programs? Cutting 365,000 kids from health care? Running up the
    biggest deficits in American history? Mr. President, you're batting 0
    for 2. I mean, seriously, labels don't mean anything. What means
    something is do you have a plan, and I want to talk about my plan some
    more. I hope we can.
        Mr. Gibson. We'll get to that in just a
    minute. Thirty seconds.
        President Bush. What does matter is the plan. He said he is for--you're now for capping punitive damages?
    That's odd. You should have shown up on the floor in the

    [[Page 2408]]

    Senate and voted for it then. Medical liability issues are a problem, a
    significant problem. He's been in the United States Senate for 20 years,
    and he hasn't addressed it. We passed it out of the House of
    Representatives. Guess where it stuck? It stuck in the Senate because
    the trial lawyers won't act on it, and he put a trial lawyer on the ticket.
        Mr. Gibson. The next question is for
    President Bush, and it comes from Matthew O'Brien.

    Federal Deficit

        Matthew O'Brien. Mr. President, you have
    enjoyed a Republican majority in the House and Senate for most of your
    Presidency. In that time, you've not vetoed a single spending bill.
    Excluding 120 billion spent in Iran and Afghan--I'm sorry, Iraq and
    Afghanistan, there has been $700 billion spent and not paid for by
    taxes. Please explain how the spending you have approved and not paid
    for is better for the American people than the spending proposed by your
    opponent.
        President Bush. Right. Thank you for that. We have a deficit. We
    have a deficit because this country went into a recession. You might
    remember the stock market started to decline dramatically 6 months
    before I came to office, and then the bubble of the 1990s popped. And
    that cost us revenue--that cost us revenue.
        Secondly, we're at war. And I'm going to spend what it takes to win
    the war, more than just 120 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. We've got
    to pay our troops more. We have. We've increased money for ammunition
    and weapons and pay and homeland security. I just told this lady over
    here we spent--went from 10 to 30 billion dollars to protect the
    homeland. I think we have an obligation to spend that kind of money.
        Plus, we cut taxes for everybody. Everybody got tax relief, so that
    they'd get out of the recession. I think if you raise taxes during a
    recession, you head to depression. I come from the school of thought
    that says when people have more money in their pocket during tough
    economic times, it increases demand or investment. Small businesses
    begin to grow, and jobs are added. We found out today that over the past
    13 months, we've added 1.9 million new jobs in the last 13 months. I
    proposed a plan, detailed budget, that shows us cutting the deficit in
    half by 5 years.
        And you're right, I haven't vetoed any spending bills because we
    worked together. Non-homeland, non-defense, discretionary spending was
    rising at 15 percent a year when I got into office. And today, it's less
    than one percent, because we're working together to try to bring this
    deficit under control. Like you, I'm concerned about the deficit. But I
    am not going to shortchange our troops in harm's way. And I'm not going
    to run up taxes which will cost this economy jobs.
        Thank you for your question.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator Kerry, a minute and a
    half.
        Senator Kerry. Let me begin by saying that
    my health care plan is not what the President described. It is not a
    Government takeover. You have choice: Choose your doctor; choose your
    plan. The Government has nothing to do with it. In fact, it doesn't ask
    you to do anything. If you don't want to take it, you don't have to. If
    you like your high premiums, you keep them. That's the way we leave it.
        Now, with respect to the deficit, the President was handed a $5.6
    trillion surplus, ladies and gentlemen. That's where he was when he came
    into office. We now have a $2.6 trillion deficit. This is the biggest
    turnaround in the history of the country. He's the first President in 72
    years to lose jobs. He talked about war. This is the first time the
    United States of America has ever had a tax cut when we're at war.
    Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, others knew how to lead. They knew how
    to ask the American people for the right things.

    [[Page 2409]]

        One percent of America--the highest one percent of income earners in
    America got $89 billion of tax cut last year. One percent of America got
    more than the 80 percent of America that earned from $100,000 down. The
    President thinks it's more important to fight for that top one percent
    than to fight for fiscal responsibility and to fight for you.
        I want to put money in your pocket. I am--I have a proposal for a
    tax cut for all people earning less than the $200,000. The only people
    affected in my plan are the top income earners of America.
        Mr. Gibson. I both--I heard you both
    say--I have heard you both say during the campaign, and I just heard you
    say it--that you're going to cut the deficit by a half in 4 years. But I
    didn't hear one thing in the last 3\1/2\ minutes that would indicate how
    either one of you do that.
        President Bush. Look at the budget. One is, make sure Congress
    doesn't overspend. But let me talk back about where we've been. The
    stock market was declining 6 months prior to my arrival. It was the
    largest stock market correction--one of the largest in history, which
    foretold a recession. Because we cut taxes on everybody--remember, we
    ran up the child credit by 1,000; we reduced the marriage penalty; we
    created the 10-percent bracket; everybody who pays taxes got relief--the
    recession was one of the shortest in our Nation's history.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.
        Senator Kerry. After 9/11, after the
    recession had ended, the President asked for another tax cut and
    promised 5.6 million jobs would be created. He lost 1.6 million, ladies
    and gentlemen, and most of that tax cut went to the wealthiest people in
    the country. He came and asked for a tax cut; we wanted a tax cut to
    kick the economy into gear. Do you know what he presented us with? A $25
    billion giveaway to the biggest corporations in America, including a
    $254 million refund check to Enron. Wrong priorities. You are my
    priority.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator Kerry, the next
    question will be for you, and it comes from James Varner, who I believe
    is in this section. Mr. Varner? You need a microphone.

    Taxes

        James Varner. Thank you. Senator Kerry,
    would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using simple
    and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge
    not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on
    families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term?
        Senator Kerry. Absolutely. Yes. Right into
    the camera--yes. I am not going to raise taxes. I have a tax cut, and
    here's my tax cut. I raise the child care credit by $1,000 for families
    to help them be able to take care of their kids. I have a $4,000 tuition
    tax credit that goes to parents and kids, if they're earning for
    themselves, to be able to pay for college. And I lower the cost of
    health care in the way that I described to you.
        Every part of my program, I've shown how I'm going to pay for it.
    And I've gotten good people, like former Secretary of the Treasury Bob
    Rubin for instance, who showed how to balance budgets and give you a
    good economy, to help me crunch these numbers and make them work. I've
    even scaled back some of my favorite programs already, like the child
    care program I wanted to fund and the national service program, because
    the President's deficit keeps growing. And I've said, as a pledge, I'm
    going to cut the deficit in half in 4 years.
        Now, I'm going to restore what we did in the 1990s, ladies and
    gentlemen: Pay as you go. We're going to do it like you do it. The
    President broke the pay-as-you-go rule. Somebody here asked the question
    about why haven't you vetoed something. It's a good question. If you
    care about it, why don't you veto it? I think John McCain called the
    energy bill the no lobbyist left

    [[Page 2410]]

    behind bill. I mean, you've got to stand up and fight somewhere, folks.
        I'm pledging I will not raise taxes. I'm giving a tax cut to the
    people earning less than $200,000 a year. Now, for the people earning
    more than $200,000 a year, you are going to see a rollback to the level
    we were at with Bill Clinton, when people made a lot of money. And
    looking around here at this group here, I suspect there are only three
    people here who are going to be affected: the President, me, and
    Charlie, I'm sorry, you too. [Laughter]
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President, 90 seconds.
        President Bush. It's just not credible. When he talks about being fiscally conservative, it's just not
    credible. If you look at his record in the Senate, he voted to break the
    spending--the caps, the spending caps, over 200 times, and here he says
    he's going to be a fiscal conservative all of a sudden. It's just not
    credible. You cannot believe it.
        And of course he's going to raise your
    taxes. You see, he's proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending. And so they
    said, ``Well, how are you going to pay for it?'' He said, well, he's
    going to raise the taxes on the rich. That's what he said, the top two
    brackets. That raises--he says 800 billion; we say 600 billion. We've
    got battling green eyeshades--somewhere in between those numbers. And so
    there is a difference, what he's promised and what he could raise. Now,
    either he's going to break all these wonderful promises he's told you
    about, or he's going to raise taxes. And I suspect, given his record,
    he's going to raise taxes.
        Is my time up yet?
        Mr. Gibson. No, you can keep going.
        President Bush. Keep going, good. [Laughter]
        Mr. Gibson. You're on----
        President Bush. You looked at me like my clock was up.
        I think that the way to grow this economy is to keep taxes low, is
    to have an energy plan, is to have litigation reform. As I told you, we
    just got a report that said over the past 13 months, we've created 1.9
    million new jobs. We're growing. And so the fundamental question of this
    campaign is, who's going to keep the economy growing so people can work?
    That's the fundamental question.

        Mr. Gibson. I'm going to come back one
    more time to how these numbers add up and how you can cut that deficit
    in half in 4 years, given what you've both said.

        Senator Kerry. Well, first of all, the
    President's figures of 2.2 trillion just aren't accurate. Those are the
    fuzzy math figures put together by some group that works for the
    campaign. That's not the number.

        Number two, John McCain and I have a proposal, jointly, for a
    commission that closes corporate giveaway loopholes. We've got $40
    billion going to Bermuda. We've got all kinds of giveaways. We ought to
    be shutting those down.

        And third, credible? Ladies and gentlemen, in 1985, I was one of the
    first Democrats to move to balance the budget. I voted for the balanced
    budget in '93 and '97. We did it. We did it, and I was there.

        Mr. Gibson. Thirty seconds--I'm sorry,
    thirty seconds, Mr. President.

        President Bush. Yes, I mean, he's got a
    record. He's been there for 20 years. You can run, but you can't hide.
    He voted 98 times to raise taxes. I mean, these aren't make-up figures.
    And so people are going to have to look at the record--look at the
    record of the man running for the President. They don't name him the
    most liberal in the United States Senate because he hasn't shown up to
    many meetings. They named him because of his votes, and it's reality.
    It's just not credible to say he's going to keep taxes down and balance
    budgets.

        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President, the next
    question is for you, and it comes from James Hubb, over here.

    [[Page 2411]]

    Action on the Environment/Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework
    Convention on Climate Change

        James Hubb. Mr. President, how would you rate
    yourself as an environmentalist? What specifically has your
    administration done to improve the condition of our Nation's air and
    water supply?
        President Bush. Off-road diesel engines--we have reached an
    agreement to reduce pollution from off-road diesel engines by 90
    percent. I've got a plan to increase the wetlands by 3 million. We've
    got an aggressive brownfield program to refurbish inner-city sore spots
    to useful pieces of property.
        I proposed to the United States Congress a Clear Skies Initiative to
    reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury by 70 percent. I
    was--fought for a very strong title in the farm bill for the
    Conservation Reserve Program to set aside millions of acres of land
    for--to help improve wildlife in the habitat.
        We proposed and passed a Healthy Forests bill, which was essential
    to working with--particularly in western States, to make sure that our
    forests were protected. What happens in those forests, because of lousy
    Federal policy, is they grow to be--they are not--they're not harvested.
    They're not taken care of, and as a result, they're like tinder boxes.
    And over the last summers I've flown over there. And so this is a
    reasonable policy to protect old stands of trees and, at the same time,
    make sure our forests aren't vulnerable to the forest fires that have
    destroyed acres after acres in the West. We've got a good, commonsense
    policy.
        Now, I'm going to tell you what I really think is going to happen
    over time, is technology is going to change the way we live, for the
    good, for the environment. So I proposed a hydrogen automobile, a
    hydrogen-generated automobile. We're spending a billion dollars to come
    up with the technologies to do that.
        That's why I'm a big proponent of clean coal technology, to make
    sure we can use coal but in a clean way. I guess you'd say I'm a good
    steward of the land. The quality of the air is cleaner since I've been
    the President; fewer water complaints since I've been the President;
    more land being restored since I've been the President.
        Thank you for your question.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator Kerry, a minute and a
    half.
        Senator Kerry. Boy, to listen to that, the
    President I don't think is living in a world of reality with respect to
    the environment. Now, if you're a Red Sox fan, that's okay. But if
    you're a President, it's not. Let me just say to you, number one, don't
    throw the labels around. Labels don't mean anything. I supported welfare
    reform. I led the fight to put 100,000 cops on the streets of America.
    I've been for faith-based initiatives helping to intervene in the lives
    of young children for years. I was--broke with my party in 1985, one of
    the first three Democrats to fight for a balanced budget when it was
    heresy. Labels don't fit, ladies and gentlemen.
        Now, when it comes to the issue of the environment, this is one of
    the worst administrations in modern history. The Clear Skies bill that
    he just talked about--it's one of those Orwellian names you pull out of
    the sky, slap it onto something--like No Child Left Behind, but you
    leave millions of children behind. Here they're leaving the skies and
    the environment behind.
        If they just left the Clean Air Act all alone the way it is today,
    no change, the air would be cleaner than it is if you pass the cleaner
    skies act. We're going backwards. In fact, his environmental enforcement
    chief air quality person at the EPA resigned in protest over what
    they're doing to what are called the New Source Performance Standards
    for air quality. They're going backwards on the definition for wetlands.
    They're going backwards on the water quality. They pulled out of the
    global

    [[Page 2412]]

    warming, declared it dead; didn't even accept the science. I'm going to
    be a President who believes in science.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President?
        President Bush. Well, had we joined the Kyoto treaty, which I guess
    he's referring to, it would have cost America
    a lot of jobs. It's one of these deals where in order to be popular in
    the halls of Europe, you sign a treaty. But I thought it would cost a
    lot of--I think there's a better way to do it. And I just told you the
    facts, sir. The quality of the air is cleaner since I've been the
    President of the United States. And we'll continue to spend money on
    research and development because I truly believe that's the way to get
    from how we live today to being able to live a standard of living that
    we're accustomed to and being able to protect our environment better--
    the use of technologies.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.
        Senator Kerry. The fact is that the Kyoto
    treaty was flawed. I was in Kyoto, and I was part of that. I know what
    happened. But this President didn't try to fix it. He just declared it
    dead, ladies and gentlemen, and we walked away from the work of 160
    nations over 10 years. You wonder, Nikki, why it is that people don't
    like us in some parts of the world. You just say, ``Hey, we don't agree
    with you. Goodbye.'' The President has done nothing to try to fix it. I
    will.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator Kerry, the next
    question is for you. It involves jobs, which is a topic in the news
    today. And for the question, we're going to turn to Jane Barrow.

    Trade Competitiveness/Jobs/Taxes

        Jane Barrow. Senator Kerry, how can the U.S.
    be competitive in a manufacturing given--in manufacturing, excuse me,
    given the wage necessary and comfortably accepted for American workers
    to maintain the standard of living that they expect?
        Senator Kerry. Jane, there are a lot of
    ways to be competitive. And unfortunately, again, I regret, this
    administration has not seized them and embraced them. Let me give you an
    example. There's a tax loophole right now--if you're a company in St.
    Louis working, trying to make jobs here, there's actually an incentive
    for you to go away. You get more money--you can keep more of your taxes
    by going abroad. I'm going to shut that loophole, and I'm going to give
    the tax benefit to the companies that stay here in America to help make
    them more competitive.
        Secondly, we're going to create a manufacturing jobs credit and a
    new jobs credit for people to be able to help hire and be more
    competitive here in America.
        Third, what's really hurting American business, more than anything
    else, is the cost of health care. Now, you didn't hear any plan from the
    President, because he doesn't have a plan to lower the cost of health
    care. Five million Americans have lost their health care; 620,000
    Missourians have no health care at all; 96,000 Missourians have lost
    their health care under President Bush.
        I have a plan to cover those folks, and it's a plan that lowers
    costs for everybody, covers all children. And the way I pay for it--I'm
    not fiscally irresponsible--is I roll back the tax cut that this
    President so fiercely wants to defend, the one for him and me and
    Charlie. I think you ought to get the break. I want to lower your cost
    of health care.
        I want to fully fund education, No Child Left Behind, special needs
    education. And that's how we're going to be more competitive, by making
    sure our kids are graduating from school and college. China and India
    are graduating more graduates in technology and science than we are.
    We've got to create the products of the future.
        That's why I have a plan for energy independence within 10 years.
    And we're going to put our laboratories and our colleges and
    universities to work, and we're going to get the great entrepreneurial
    spirit of

    [[Page 2413]]

    this country, and we're going to free ourselves from this dependency on
    Mideast oil. That's how you create jobs and become competitive.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President, minute and a
    half.
        President Bush. Let me start with how to control the costs of health
    care: Medical liability reform, for starters, which he's opposed.
    Secondly, allow small businesses to pool together so they can share risk
    and buy insurance at the same discounts big businesses get to do.
    Thirdly, spread what's called health savings accounts. It's good for
    small businesses, good for owners. You own your own account. You can
    save tax-free. You get a catastrophic plan to help you--own it. This is
    different from saying, ``Okay, let me incent you to go on the
    Government.''
        He's talking about his plan to keep jobs
    here. You know, he calls it an
    outsourcing--to keep--stop outsourcing. Robert Rubin looked at his plan and said it won't work. The best way to
    keep jobs here in America is, one, have an energy plan. I proposed one
    to the Congress 2 years ago. It encourages conservation, encourages
    technology to explore for environmentally friendly ways for coal and use
    coal and gas. It encourages the use of renewables like ethanol and
    biodiesel. It's stuck in the Senate. He and his runningmate didn't show
    up to vote when they could have got it going in the Senate. Less
    regulations if we want jobs here. Legal reform if we want jobs here. And
    we've got to keep taxes low.
        Now, he says he's only going to tax the
    rich. Do you realize 900,000 small businesses will be taxed under his
    plan because most small businesses are Subchapter S corps or limited
    partnerships, and they pay tax at the individual income-tax level. And
    so when you're running up the taxes like that, you're taxing job
    creators, and that's not how you keep jobs here.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator, I want to extend for
    a minute. You talk about tax credits to stop outsourcing. But when you
    have IBM documents that I saw recently, where you can hire a programmer
    for $12 in China, $56 an hour here, tax credits won't cut it in that
    area.
        Senator Kerry. You can't stop all
    outsourcing, Charlie. I've never promised that. I'm not going to,
    because that would be pandering. You can't. But what you can do is
    create a fair playing field, and that's what I'm talking about.
        But let me just address what the President just said. Ladies and
    gentlemen, that's just not true, what he said. The Wall Street Journal
    said 96 percent of small businesses are not affected at all by my plan.
    And you know why he gets that count? The President got $84 from a timber
    company that he owns, and he's counted as a small business. Dick Cheney
    is counted as a small business. That's how they do things. That's just
    not right.
        President Bush. I own a timber company? That's news to me.
    [Laughter] Need some wood? [Laughter]
        Most small businesses are Subchapter S corps. They just are. I met
    Grant Milliron, Mansfield, Ohio. He's creating jobs. Most small businesses--70 percent of
    the new jobs in America are created by small business. His taxes are
    going up when you run up the top two brackets. It's a fact.
        Mr. Gibson. President Bush, the next
    question is for you, and it comes from Rob Fowler, who I believe is over
    in this area.

    PATRIOT Act

        Rob Fowler. President Bush, 45 days after 9/
    11, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, which takes away checks on law
    enforcement and weakens American citizens' rights and freedoms,
    especially Fourth Amendment rights. With expansions of the PATRIOT Act
    and PATRIOT Act II, my question to you is, why are my rights being
    watered down and my citizens around me, and what are the specific
    justifications for these reforms?

    [[Page 2414]]

        President Bush. Yes, I appreciate that. I really don't think your
    rights are being watered down. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't support
    it if I thought that. Every action being taken against terrorists
    requires a court order, requires scrutiny. As a matter of fact, the
    tools now given to the terrorist fighters are the same tools that we've
    been using against drug dealers and white-collar criminals. So I really
    don't think so. I hope you don't think that. I mean, I--because I think
    whoever is the President must guard your liberties, must not erode your
    rights in America.
        The PATRIOT Act is necessary, for example, because parts of the FBI
    couldn't talk to each other. Intelligence gathering and the law
    enforcement arms of the FBI just couldn't share intelligence under the
    old law, and that didn't make any sense. Our law enforcement must have
    every tool necessary to find and disrupt terrorists at home and abroad
    before they hurt us again. That's the task of the 21st century.
        And so I don't think the PATRIOT Act abridges your rights at all,
    and I know it's necessary. I can remember being in upstate New York
    talking to FBI agents that helped bust the Lackawanna cell up there. And
    they told me they could not have performed their duty, the duty we all
    expect of them, if they did not have the ability to communicate with
    each other under the PATRIOT Act.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator Kerry, a minute and a
    half.
        Senator Kerry. Former Governor Racicot, as
    chairman of the Republican Party, said he thought that the PATRIOT Act
    has to be changed and fixed. Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner--he's the chairman of the House Judiciary
    Committee--has said over his dead body before it gets renewed without
    being thoroughly rechecked. Whole bunch of folks in America concerned
    about the way the PATRIOT Act has been applied.
        In fact, the Inspector General of the Justice Department found that
    John Ashcroft had twice applied it in ways that were inappropriate.
    People's rights have been abused. I met a man who spent 8 months in
    prison, wasn't even allowed to call his lawyer, wasn't allowed to--
    finally, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois intervened and was able to get
    him out. This is in our country, folks, the United States of America.
    They've got sneak-and-peak searches that are allowed. They've got people
    allowed to go into churches now and political meetings, without any
    showing of potential criminal activity or otherwise.
        Now, I voted for the PATRIOT Act. Ninety-nine United States Senators
    voted for it. And the President has been very busy running around the
    country using what I just described to you as a reason to say I'm wishy-
    washy, that I'm a flip-flopper. Now, that's not a flip-flop. I believe
    in the PATRIOT Act. We need the things in it that coordinate the FBI and
    the CIA. We need to be stronger on terrorism. But you know what we also
    need to do as Americans is never let the terrorists change the
    Constitution of the United States in a way that disadvantages our
    rights.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator Kerry, the next
    question is for you, and it comes from Elizabeth Long.

    Embryonic Stem Cell Research

        Elizabeth Long. Senator Kerry, thousands
    of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem
    cells or umbilical cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by
    using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells
    obtained without the destruction of an embryo?
        Senator Kerry. You know, Elizabeth, I
    really respect your--the feeling that's in your question. I understand
    it. I know the morality that's prompting that question, and I respect it
    enormously. But like Nancy Reagan and so many other people--you know, I
    was at a forum with Michael J. Fox the other day in New Hampshire,

    [[Page 2415]]

    who's suffering from Parkinson's, and he wants us to do stem cell--
    embryonic stem cell. And this fellow stood up, and he was quivering. His
    whole body was shaking from the nerve disease, the muscular disease that
    he had, and he said to me and to the whole hall, he said, you know,
    ``Don't take away my hope because my hope is what keeps me going.''
    Chris Reeve is a friend of mine. Chris Reeve exercises every single day
    to keep those muscles alive for the day when he believes he can walk
    again, and I want him to walk again.
        I think we can save lives. Now, I think we can do ethically guided
    embryonic stem cell research. We have 100,000 to 200,000 embryos that
    are frozen in nitrogen today from fertility clinics. These weren't taken
    from abortion or something like that. They're from a fertility clinic,
    and they're either going to be destroyed or left frozen. And I believe
    if we have the option, which scientists tell us we do, of curing
    Parkinson's, curing diabetes, curing some kind of a paraplegic or
    quadriplegic or a spinal cord injury, anything--that's the nature of the
    human spirit. I think it is respecting life to reach for that cure. I
    think it is respecting life to do it in an ethical way.
        And the President's chosen a policy that makes it impossible for our
    scientists to do that. I want the future, and I think we have to grab
    it.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President, a minute and a
    half.
        President Bush. Embryonic stem cell research requires the
    destruction of life to create a stem cell. I'm the first President ever
    to allow funding, Federal funding, for embryonic stem cell research. I
    did so because I too hope that we'll discover cures from the stem cells
    and from the research derived.
        But I think we've got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and
    the science. And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money
    beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because science is
    important but so is ethics, so is balancing life. To destroy life to
    save life is one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face.
        There is going to be hundreds of experiments off the 22 lines that
    now exist, that are active, and hopefully we find a cure. But as well we
    need to continue to pursue adult stem cell research. I helped double the
    NIH budget to $28 billion a year to find cures. And the approach I took
    is one that I think is a balanced and necessary approach, to balance
    science and the concerns for life.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator, thirty seconds,
    let's extend.
        Senator Kerry. When you talk about walking
    a waffle line, he says he's allowed it, which means he's going to allow
    the destruction of life up to a certain amount, and then he isn't going
    to allow it. Now, I don't know how you draw that line. But let me tell
    you pointblank, the lines of stem cells that he's made available, every
    scientist in the country will tell you, ``Not adequate,'' because
    they're contaminated by mouse cells and because there aren't 60 or 70;
    there are only about 11 to 20 now, and there aren't enough to be able to
    do the research because they're contaminated.
        We've got to open up the possibilities of this research. And when I
    am President, I'm going to do it, because we have to.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President.
        President Bush. Let me make sure you understand my decision. Those
    stem cell lines already existed. The embryo had already been destroyed
    prior to my decision. I had to make the decision: Do we destroy more
    life; do we continue to destroy life? I made the decision to balance
    science and ethics.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President, the next
    question is for you, and it comes from Jonathan Michaelson.

    Supreme Court

        Jonathan Michaelson. Mr. President,
    if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity
    to fill that

    [[Page 2416]]

    position today, who would you choose, and why?
        President Bush. I'm not telling. [Laughter] I really don't have--I
    haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.
    [Laughter] I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal
    opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would
    strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.
        Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person
    I wouldn't pick. I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of
    Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words ``under
    God'' in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal
    opinion to enter into the decisionmaking process, as opposed to strict
    interpretation of the Constitution.
        Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges
    years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal
    property rights. That's personal opinion. That's not what the
    Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're
    all--it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
        And so I would pick people that would be strict constructionists.
    We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, DC. Legislators make law.
    Judges interpret the Constitution. And I suspect one of us will have a
    pick at the end of next year--next 4 years. And that's the kind of judge
    I'm going to put on there--no litmus test except for how they interpret
    the Constitution.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator Kerry, a minute and a
    half.
        Senator Kerry. Thank you, Charlie. A few
    years ago, when he came to office, the President said--these are his
    words--``What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts.''
    And he said also that his two favorite Justices are Justice Scalia and
    Justice Thomas. So you get a pretty good sense of where he's heading if
    he were to appoint somebody.
        Now, here's what I believe. I don't believe we need a good
    conservative judge, and I don't believe we need a good liberal judge. I
    don't believe we need a good judge of that kind of definition on either
    side. I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a
    Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, and he said the mark
    of a good judge, a good Justice, is that when you're reading their
    decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or a
    woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew, or a Christian. You
    just know you're reading a good judicial decision.
        What I want to find, if I'm privileged to have the opportunity to do
    it--and the Supreme Court of the United States is at stake in this race,
    ladies and gentlemen, the future of things that matter to you in terms
    of civil rights, what kind of Justice Department you'll have, whether
    we'll enforce the law, will we have equal opportunity, will women's
    rights be protected, will we have equal pay for women, which is going
    backwards, will a woman's right to choose be protected. These are
    constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who
    interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.
        Mr. Gibson. Going to go to the final two
    questions, now. And the first one will be for Senator Kerry, and this
    comes from Sarah Degenhart.

    Federal Funding of Abortions

        Sarah Degenhart. Senator Kerry, suppose
    you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder, and the
    voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to
    support abortion. What would you say to that person?
        Senator Kerry. I would say to that person
    exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell
    you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a
    Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a
    huge part of my life. It helped lead me

    [[Page 2417]]

    through a war, leads me today. But I can't take what is an article of
    faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article
    of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever.
    I can't do that.
        But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about
    responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife, Teresa, does, about
    making other choices and about abstinence and about all these other
    things that we ought to do as a responsible society. But as a President,
    I have to represent all the people in the Nation, and I have to make
    that judgment.
        Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro-
    abortion. But you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And
    that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to
    know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't
    deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the
    Constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.
        That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important
    for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological
    restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a
    smart decision about family planning. You'll help prevent AIDS. You'll
    help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies. You'll actually do
    a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is
    expressed in your question, and I truly respect it.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President, a minute and a
    half.
        President Bush. Trying to decipher that. [Laughter] My answer is
    we're not going to spend Federal taxpayers' money on abortion. This is
    an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree
    on how to reduce abortions in America. I signed the ban on partial-birth
    abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions.
    My opponent voted against the ban. I think
    there ought to be parental notification laws. He's against them. I
    signed a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. In other words,
    if you're a mom and you're pregnant, you get killed, the murderer gets
    tried for two cases, not just one. My opponent was against that. These
    are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America.
        I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected
    by law and welcomed in life. I also think we ought to continue to have
    good adoption law as an alternative to abortion. And we need to promote
    maternity group homes, which my administration has done. Culture of life
    is really important for a country to have if it's going to be a
    hospitable society.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator, do you want to
    follow up? Thirty seconds.
        Senator Kerry. Well, again, the President
    just said categorically, ``My opponent is against this. My opponent is
    against that.'' It's just not that simple. No, I'm not. I'm against the
    partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life
    of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of
    bodily injury to the mother. Secondly, with respect to parental
    notification, I'm not going to require a 16- or 17-year old kid who's
    been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her
    father. So you've got to have a judicial intervention. And because they
    didn't have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get
    help, I voted against it. It's never quite as simple as the President
    wants you to believe.
        Mr. Gibson. And 30 seconds, Mr.
    President.
        President Bush. It's pretty simple when they say, ``Are you for a
    ban on partial-birth abortion? Yes or no.'' And he was given a chance to vote, and he voted no. And that's
    just the way it is. That's a vote. It came right up. It's clear for
    everybody to see. And as I said, you can run, but you can't hide. It's
    the reality.

    [[Page 2418]]

        Mr. Gibson. And the final question of the
    evening will be addressed to President Bush, and it will come from Linda
    Grabel. Linda Grabel is over here.
        President Bush. Put a head fake on.
        Mr. Gibson. I got faked out, myself.
    [Laughter]

    Presidential Decisionmaking/Funding U.S. Troops

        Linda Grabel. President Bush, during the
    last 4 years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected
    millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to
    realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it.
    Thank you.
        President Bush. I have made a lot of decisions, some of them little,
    like appointments to a board you've never heard of, and some of them
    big. And in a war, there's a lot of tactical decisions that historians
    will look back and say, ``You shouldn't have done that. You shouldn't
    have made that decision.'' And I'll take responsibility for them. I'm
    human.
        But on the big questions about whether or not we should have gone
    into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed
    somebody in Iraq, I'll stand by those decisions because I think they're
    right. That's really what you're--when they ask about the mistakes,
    that's what they're talking about. They're trying to say, ``Did you make
    a mistake going into Iraq?'' And the answer is absolutely not. It was
    the right decision.
        The Duelfer report confirmed that
    decision today, because what Saddam Hussein
    was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a
    weapons program, and the biggest threat facing America is terrorists
    with weapons of mass destruction. We knew he hated us. We knew he had
    been a--invaded other countries. We knew he tortured his own people.
        On the tax cut, it's a big decision. I did the right decision. Our
    recession was one of the shallowest in modern history.
        Now, you ask what mistakes--I made some mistakes in appointing
    people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their
    feelings on national TV. But history will look back, and I'm fully
    prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my
    administration. Because the President makes the decisions, the President
    has to take the responsibility.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator Kerry, a minute and a
    half.
        Senator Kerry. I believe the President
    made a huge mistake, a catastrophic mistake, not to live up to his own
    standard, which was build a true global coalition, give the inspectors
    time to finish their job, and go through the U.N. process to its end and
    go to war as a last resort.
        I ask each of you just to look into your hearts, look into your
    guts--gut-check time. Was this really going to war as a last resort? The
    President rushed our Nation to war without a plan to win the peace, and
    simple things weren't done. That's why Senator Lugar says
    ``incompetent'' in the delivery of services. That's why Senator Hagel,
    Republican, says, ``beyond pitiful, beyond embarrassing, in the zone of
    dangerous.''
        We didn't guard 850,000 tons of ammo. That ammo is now being used
    against our kids. Ten thousand out of twelve thousand Humvees aren't
    armored. I've visited some of those kids with no limbs today because
    they didn't have the armor on those vehicles. They didn't have the right
    body armor. I've met parents who've, on the Internet, gotten the armor
    to send their kids.
        There's no bigger judgment for a President of the United States than
    how you take a nation to war. And you can't say, ``Because Saddam might
    have done it 10 years from now, that's a reason.'' That's an excuse.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President.
        President Bush. He complains about the
    fact our troops don't have adequate equipment, yet he voted against the
    $87 billion supplemental I sent to the Congress and then issued one of
    the most amazing quotes

    [[Page 2419]]

    in political history: ``I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before
    I voted against it.''
        Saddam Hussein was a risk to our country,
    ma'am. And he was a risk that--and this is where we just have a
    difference of opinion. The truth of the matter is, if you listen
    carefully: Saddam would still be in power if he were the President of
    the United States, and the world would be ``a lot better off.''
        Mr. Gibson. And Senator Kerry, 30
    seconds.
        Senator Kerry. Not necessarily be in
    power. But here's what I'll say about the 87 billion: I made a mistake
    in the way I talked about it. He made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which
    is a worse decision?
        Now, I voted the way I voted because I saw that he had the policy
    wrong, and I wanted accountability. I didn't want to give a slush fund
    to Halliburton. I also thought the wealthiest people in America ought to
    pay for it, ladies and gentlemen. He wants your kids to pay for it. I
    wanted us to pay for it, since we're at war. I don't think that's a bad
    decision.

    Closing Statements

        Mr. Gibson. That's going to conclude the
    questioning. We're going to go now to closing statements, 2 minutes from
    each candidate. And the first closing statement goes to Senator Kerry. I
    believe that was the agreement.
        President Bush. Go ahead. Actually----
        Senator Kerry. You want to go first?
        President Bush. Either way. [Laughter]
        Senator Kerry. Thank you. Charlie, thank
    you. And thank you all. Thank you, all of you, for taking part; thanks
    for your questions tonight very, very much.
        Obviously, the President and I both have very strong convictions. I
    respect him for that, but we have a very different view about how to
    make America stronger and safer. I will never cede the authority of our
    country or our security to any other nation. I'll never give a veto of
    American security to any other entity, not a nation, not a country, not
    an institution. But I know, as I think you do, that our country is
    strongest when we lead the world, when we lead strong alliances. And
    that's the way Eisenhower and Reagan and Kennedy and others did it. We
    are not doing that today. We need to.
        I have a plan that will help us go out and kill and find the
    terrorists, and I will not stop in our effort to hunt down and kill the
    terrorists. But I also have a better plan on how we're going to deal
    with Iraq, training the Iraqi forces more rapidly, getting our allies
    back to the table with a fresh start, with new credibility, with a
    President whose judgment the rest of the world trusts.
        In addition to that, I believe we have a crisis here at home, a
    crisis of the middle class that is increasingly squeezed, health care
    costs going up. I have a plan to provide health care to all Americans. I
    have a plan to provide for our schools so we keep the standards, but we
    help our teachers teach and elevate our schools by funding No Child Left
    Behind. I have a plan to protect the environment so that we leave this
    place in better shape to our children than we were handed it by our
    parents. That's the test.
        I believe America's best days are ahead of us. I'm an optimist. But
    we have to make the right choices, to be fiscally responsible and to
    create the new jobs of the future. We can do this. And I ask you for the
    privilege of leading our Nation to be stronger at home and respected
    again in the world.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Gibson. Senator. And a closing
    statement from President Bush.
        President Bush. Charlie, thanks. Thank
    you all very much. It's been enjoyable.
        The great contest for the Presidency is about the future, who can
    lead, who can get things done. We've been through a lot together as a
    country, been through a recession, corporate scandals, war. And yet,
    think about where we are. We added 1.9

    [[Page 2420]]

    million new jobs over the past 13 months. The farm income in America is
    high. Small businesses are flourishing. Homeownership rate is at an
    alltime high in America. We're on the move.
        Tonight I had a chance to discuss with you what to do to keep this
    economy going: Keep the taxes low, don't increase the scope of the
    Federal Government, keep regulations down, legal reform, a health care
    policy that does not empower the Federal Government but empowers
    individuals, and an energy plan that will help us become less dependent
    on foreign sources of energy.
        And abroad, we're at war, and it requires a President who is
    steadfast and strong and determined. I vowed to the American people
    after that fateful day of September the 11th that we would not rest nor
    tire until we're safe. The 9/11 Commission put out a report that said
    America is safer, but not yet safe. There's more work to be done. We'll
    stay on the hunt on Al Qaida. We'll deny sanctuary to these terrorists.
    We'll make sure they do not end up with weapons of mass destruction. The
    great nexus, the great threat to our country is that these haters end up
    with weapons of mass destruction.
        But our long-term security depends on our deep faith in liberty.
    We'll continue to promote freedom around the world. Freedom is on the
    march. Tomorrow Afghanistan will be voting for a President. In Iraq,
    we'll be having free elections, and a free society will make this world
    more peaceful.
        God bless.
        Mr. Gibson. Mr. President and Senator
    Kerry. That concludes tonight's debate.
        I want to give you a reminder that the third and final debate, on
    issues of domestic policy, will be held next Wednesday, October 13th, at
    Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, hosted by Bob Schieffer of
    CBS News.
        I want to thank President Bush and Senator Kerry for tonight. I want
    to thank these citizens of the St. Louis area who asked the questions,
    who gave so willingly of their time, and who took their responsibility
    very seriously. Thank you also to everyone at Washington. I want to
    thank everyone at Washington University in St. Louis for being such
    gracious hosts.
        I'm Charles Gibson from ABC News. From St. Louis, good night.

    Note: The debate began at 8:02 p.m. in the Field House at Washington
    University. In his remarks, the President referred to former Democratic
    Presidential candidate Howard Dean; Finance Minister Adil Abd al-Mahdi
    of the Iraqi Interim Government; Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United
    Kingdom; Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy; Chairman Yasser
    Arafat of the Palestinian Authority; Gen. Tommy R. Franks, USA (Ret.),
    former combatant commander, U.S. Central Command; Chairman Kim Chong-il
    of North Korea; President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland; and Grant E.
    Milliron, president, Milliron Iron & Metal, Inc. The President also
    referred to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
    States (9/11 Commission). Senator Kerry referred to Marc Racicot, former
    chairman, Republican National Committee; Usama bin Laden, leader of the
    Al Qaida terrorist organization; Charles Duelfer, Special Advisor to the
    Director of Central Intelligence; King Abdullah II of Jordan; Gen. Eric
    K. Shinseki, USA (Ret.), former Army Chief of Staff; Hans Blix, former
    Executive Chairman, United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and
    Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC); Lt. Gen. Edward Baca (Ret.), former
    chief, National Guard Bureau; and actors Michael J. Fox and Christopher
    Reeve. Senator Kerry also referred to the ``Comprehensive Report of the
    Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD,'' issued September 30. The
    names of participants who asked questions of the candidates were taken
    from the transcript produced by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

    [[Page 2421]]